[j_drake]

How about every time you log in to download new songs they reset a timer in your computer file for your songs...just a shot in the dark. Seems unlikely that they would say this unless they were fairly sure it was do-able only 'cause it's in their best interest. On the other hand when they make unfounded statements that only affect thier users then they really have no need to be honest, as in "Infinitley Better". /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Spark]

Ya know, I like Pepsi. I don't care that other people like Coke. It doesn't bother me that Coke runs ads saying it tastes better than Pepsi. As long as there is Pepsi on the shelf there is no issue. I think iTunes has established a pretty unasailable position in the market. It is the rock on which the waves of Real and Napster fruitlessly crash. Enjoy the noise they make.

[Quoth_the_Raven]

It's the player, stupid!
Well, the subscription-model apologists are seriously missing the boat. The number one digital music player is...? So what if you can move Crapster tunes to your Un-Creative Zen or cry me an iRiver POS player? You can't move them to the iPod. I don't know if any of you have noticed, but iPods just keep selling and selling and selling. They can't keep 'em in stock. Apple is in position now to take over the flash player market with iPod shuffle. Now, do you think most people buy an iPod just so that they can use the iTMS. I certainly don't. They buy them so that they can go digital with their existing LP and CD collections. The iTMS is just icing on the cake. Do you honestly think that intelligent people are going to buy a Zen or iRiver so they can use the Crapster service? Hell, no! Of course, when newbies decide to take the plunge, which player do you think 8 out of 10 of them are going to buy? The only way this Crapster plan might work is if it supported iPod. I can tell you now, that ain't never going to happen. "iPod Critical Mass" has been reached, folks.
While we're at it, how easy is this new service going to be to use? How elegantly will it organize and transfer the music to the player? Many subscription service sychophants neglect to mention that Apple has integrated all the pieces of the digital download puzzle with iPod, iTunes and iTMS into an incredibly simple, user-friendly experience. Can any of these subscription models match it? I seriously doubt it. And, you know the RIAA wouldn't be so hot to trot for subscription services if they didn't think they could get your money for nothing. Crapster needs to go back and re-do the math!

[jmincey]

"Ya know, I like Pepsi. I don't care that other people like Coke. It doesn't bother me that Coke runs ads saying it tastes better than Pepsi...."
Ah, a voice of reason. Well said -- and right on target.

[j_drake]

Main difference between your examples and the Napster model is that you can record and save the "cable" & "satellite" offerings and they are yours to keep until the media you saved it on dies, not when HBO et al decides. And that's a H U G E difference. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jmincey]

Peter, you make a good point here. I contend that DRM in all its forms runs counter to the spirit of the doctrine of fair use.

[j_drake]

Amen! And sane folks are not really saying that the subscription method will never work, just that it's a matter of choice, BTW I love my Pepsi
too!

[dbranam]

"I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would be opposed to the subscription model"
Well, let's see now, maybe it's because I don't won't to be "locked in" by having to choose one internet music store over another. In the Napster model, if I choose to subscribe to them and after a year or two decide the new Brand X download service would be better. I would either have to sacrifice the hundereds if not thousands of songs I had downloaded from Napster or subcribe to two sepearate services. Come to think of it unless I would be "locked in" to Napster for the rest of my life, if I wanted to keep the music I had downloaded from deal. Oh yeah that's a sweet deal!!
With iTunes I pay for what I want and I get to keep it for however long I want it. So, tell me again, what would the advantage of a subcription service model for me? I can see that if Napster and the rest can hoodwink enough idiots into their model where it would be good for their bottom line, but as for me I don't have enough money after paying for subcriptions to my newspaper, magazince, cable (TV and Internet) and Cell phone to pay for a music subcription. Especially when I'm living in Nirvana now with iTunes.

[dean_o]

I think everyone is missing the real lesson here: No one else wants to try to make a go of the pay-per-song retail model because Apple has that market sewn up. The fact that everyone else is trying variations on the subscription model is indicative of Apple's dominance in pay-per-song market. If you want a piece of the digital music business, the only thing you can do is shoot for a different market than Apple's with a different distribution model and hope to carve out a niche for yourself.
There's probably room in the market for BOTH the retail and subscription models, just like you can both buy and rent DVDs. The good news for Apple (and it's customers) is that apparently even the competition knows that the iTunes Music Store is the best at what it does.

[jmincey]

In reply to:

---

"I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would be opposed to the subscription model"
Well, let's see now, maybe it's because I don't won't to be "locked in" by having to choose one internet music store over another.

---

The point you make is valid, but it indicts not subscription services as such but rather only DRM or company licensing policies. When I subscribe to a newspaper or monthly journal I can keep the issues I have acquired up to a given time even if I choose thereafter to cancel my subscription (or to refrain from renewing it). I can enjoy my collection of National Geographics, for example, and read them throughout my life as I wish. The same goes for subscriptions to TV and cable services (as others have pointed out); you can make a copy of a program and have that to enjoy for noncommercial use long after your subscription has been cancelled.
Not so with companies like Napster, and this is indeed a shortcoming. But this is not endemic to subscription services but rather only to the onerous bugaboo of DRM.

[j_drake]

Jeff I think you and I will never agree on the DRM issue, mainly 'cause I think it is fair for the writer/producer to expect credit/cash for their efforts. And all the movies/shows, tape or otherwise, warn us that we may not duplicate except for our own use. And our own use does not include making copies to give to friends, strangers or family. Most folks may not realize this, but if cable/satellite reception is to be used in a public place, IE a bar or restaurant, those places must pay a higher fee, which goes to the payment of royalties to the studios. Now we can argue that those monies are not necessarily making its way into the pockets or the artist/producer, but then that is certainly another issue.

[jmincey]

"...I think it is fair for the writer/producer to expect credit/cash for their efforts."
Me too. The only point of dispute between us is how best to see to this.

[d00d]

In reply to:

---

Ask HBO
Ask Netflix
Ask XM Satellite Radio
Ask Blockbuster
Ask The Wall Street Journal, for cryin' out loud

---

HBO - You don't have the option of buying their original shows initially, that only comes much later. As for the movies they show, that's different from music. People generally watch a movie just once (or twice). They don't use it over and over again in the fashion that people do with music.
Netflix - Movies, see above.
XM Satellite Radio - Haven't read much on its success. In particular, I haven't seen much on it changing the current listening habits of most people.
Blockbuster - Movies (see above) and video games. You might have a point about the video games, but most people will then buy the game if they like it.
Wall Street Journal - Now this is a completely absurd comparison. People don't subscribe so they can read several favorite articles over and over. Newspapers are all about new, fresh, consistent content.
Now, I'm not poopooing Napster for pushing the subscription model. It's a novel approach to music. However, I'm skepticle that it will bring them much success at all, especially in the long term. Using my own intuition and personal experience, I'd say most people buy music because they want to replay music over and over. One almost gets to know their music over time, by listening and picking up on new details every time they hear it. People also tend to hold on to the music of their teen years. If they simply wanted a random sampling of songs, they'd be content with the radio. They aren't though.
I just don't think that comparison to other subscription services (save for satellite radio) makes much sense. Consumption habits for different media is drastically different from music. People don't watch their movies over and over again, day in and out (except children, but let's ignore that). People don't dig out newspapers from ten years ago to read the articles again. It just isn't a worthy comparison.
As for satellite radio, confusion as to motive gets introduced when comparing to a scheme like this. Satellite's appeal (and I really have no idea about its true level of success, but I still don't know anyone personally that has it) is several fold. First, reception across the country. Second, no/less ads than traditional radio. Three, original programming (which can be both time sensitive and unavailable in static forms). Fourth, a wide variety of programming/music. It's hard to be sure that Napster's subscription service has the necessary components for success above to make it an appropriate comparison. It certainly allows for no commercials and a wide variety of programming. This news delivers the portability. That still leaves out the third motivating factor, which Howard Stern is betting is the major one. Are people willing to shell out a subscription simply because that's the only place to get what they're looking for? It's an important factor.
So, to be honest, my own feeling is that subsciption music will have a small loyal following and that it's not going to deliver the unbridled success that Napster is hoping for. I don't really know, but I don't think anyone else does either. I think only time will tell.

[dbranam]

Jeff,
I only cheer when there is something to cheer about, and the Apple model of paying a fair price for the song you want can't be beat. Can you give me a good reason other than player selection (and even that would be a minimal problem if you did not have an iPod )where a subscription service would be better for me or any consumer?